Ksilverday/Flickr
Though Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, had some success in raising money from Wall Street in advance of the 2008 presidential campaign, the financial industry reverted to the norm in 2012, donating heavily to Republicans. Wall Street, unmoved by soaring stock market indexes and record corporate profits, concluded that the president was a big meanie and those nice GOP policymakers would free the industry of pesky regulations and safeguards.
We now know, of course, that these investors don't have much to show for their contributions -- Republicans assured Wall Street that their donations would drive Democrats from power, and that clearly didn't happen. And now that those same GOP fundraisers are calling again with 2014 in mind, suddenly the financial industry isn't as eager as it was before.
Wall Street donors and bundlers plunged hundreds of millions of dollars into the GOP's effort to take back the White House and Senate this year -- and now some are threatening to cut off the spigot ahead of 2014 in the face of disappointing results.
New York donors have a list of complaints: Republicans focused too much on social issues, backed too many weak candidates, stalled Hurricane Sandy aid and even let taxes go up for the very rich -- in other words, the very people giving the money and their friends.
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) is apparently the point person for Senate Republicans when it comes to Wall Street outreach, and he's been forced to scramble, attending 12 meetings in New York last month in the hopes of reassuring donors. NRSC Chairman Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) attended donor meetings of their own in December.
It's not an easy sell. "Everyone in the financial industry, much like the business world, look at politics as an investment, and they just don't feel like they got much of a return," one financial services Republican lobbyist told Politico. "I think it is going to be tough this time."
Ya don't say.
I don't seriously expect the financial industry to start contributing heavily to Democrats. Rather, the most likely scenario is that these donors -- unimpressed with the GOP's obsession with the culture war, record of failure, poor recruiting, and primary trouble -- will simply stay on the sidelines for the midterms and see what happens in 2016.
It's worth noting that Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), furious with his party's opposition to post-Sandy emergency relief, recently told a national television audience, "Anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee should have their head examined." It's quite possible some of King's constituents who work on Wall Street agree.
Leave a Comment:
Call me a skeptic, but I can't fathom Wall Street staying out of any election or doing anything other than showering GOP candidates with money. In 2010 they cleaned house, and the next chance is another midterm. Wall Street will adjust...
Right. As a business proposition, what they spent on campaigns was peanuts compared to the potential gains they would win from repeal of Dodd Frank, and enthusiastic support for removal of constraints placed on the fossil fuel industry.
No business expects propositions to guarantee a 100% success rate.
However, they will expect an explanation for the surprisingly low Return On Investment from Karl Rove's strategy (reported on RM's show as 1%). Competence will no longer be assumed. Hopefully they won't get too interested in the revolutionary move towards empiricism based campaigning- because it appears that Obama is going to unilaterally disarm himself again.
Exactly John. This is a long game to the monied class, and their minions have already left markers. They want to soften Dodd Frank, neuter it, and destroy the EPA.
If OFA is going to discard, do you know of other PACs who are forward leaning on using the experiment informed programs that Sasha Issenberg described in his book Victory lab? It seems like at least MoveOn would find them exceptionally attractive, and it isn't exactly rocket science what they are doing (though it could become that way with some modest additional effort).
...
Or do I have it all wrong? OFA appears dead to me, the site is doing nothing- no tweets, no more mails after that first request to write my congresspeople who are all already radically pro gun control.
If there is some submarine effort going on, fine- please someone clue me in via private email available on my home page, or via the BarackObama email they have for me. I am eager to help, but this silence especially while the Senate is contemplating dropping Feinstein's bill even prior to a vote is heinous. What happened to all the emotion of December?
It is political malpractice- because all that emotion is still there, and cultivable via an aggressive grassroots push via social media.
It is pretty surprising how OFA launched with all the fanfare, did the two big boo-boo's, and has shut down since. What is with these people?
I'm not so sure that Wall Street cleaned up in the 2010 election as the Tea Party, and there's a difference. Although they all have an R after their names, the TP is much more interested in blocking abortions, keeping their guns, getting rid of immigrants and abolishing unions than lining bankers' pockets. Top of their agenda was to block all of the president's efforts and make sure he was voted out in 2012.
Remember that the Tea Party started with the Rick Santelli rant on February 19, 2009--one month after President Obama took office. In many ways, 2010 was a stealth maneuver that got so many hard-right conservatives elected to Congress and to state offices across the country. Although the elites wanted to use this new strategy for defeating Democrats to their advantage, the Tea Party, like Frankenstein, has grown into a monster and taken over to push its own social issues instead. There's a civil war going on in the Republican party.
And that stealth maneuver is going to be hard to repeat, now that the left is prepared for it. In a way, they did themselves in, by blocking all progress in Congress and pushing through draconian measures in the states. I believe anger at those hijinx is what energized the progressives to get out and vote in 2012, no matter how difficult they made it. The next election is going to be interesting.
TC- MoveOn, or roll our own?
It could be done- if it were me, I would build an org that focused on all the swing states and simply developed relationships with all those targetted as persuadables. Then just maintain a relationship over 2 years, no high pressure, just informing people what votes the incumbent has been making, asking them if they's like to express their opinions on upcoming votes or committee actions- then let the voter know ever time the representative does something counter to their opinion.
You know, build the resentment drop by drop.
John , Good idea. Drop by drop!
Roll our own.
We have to beat them at their own game, and we have to be vigilant.
"Everyone in the financial industry, much like the business world, look at politics as an investment, and they just don't feel like they got much of a return,"
As a voter - I too feel as though I'm not getting a return on my investment vote! So hey Wall Street, cry me a river! Politicians are supposed to WORK FOR THE PEOPLE and frankly this attitude highlights exactly why WE need public funding of all elections!
Yes!
Although I do agree with you, the thing you have to keep in mind is that with the advent of Facebook twitter and cell phones we are actually a lot closer to evening up the scoreboard than we were before...Lots of small donations are just as good as a few large ones if not better when you consider the information they come with and the ability to get larger numbers of people involved in the process.
The other thing to keep in mind about the internet and politics is that it's a lot harder to smear an opponent with twisted words or to just bold faced lie and get away with it. Fact checking sites and easy access to news reports and recordings of speeches and events can sink a candidate just as fast as anything...Ask Mitt Romney
and then think about what we saw in the last election. Even after citizens united and all that dark money got pumped in it still didn't buy the election.
I seriously think the world of massive contributions to parties themselves might be changing and we will see the rise of more targeted approaches to election finance
dragoon,
"The other thing to keep in mind about the internet and politics is that it's a lot harder to smear an opponent with twisted words or to just bold faced lie and get away with it."
Romney damned near got away with it but your point is taken.
I think everyone gets what they pay for, when they try and buy an election.
This is pretty much only good news. Short of a badly needed repeal of Citizens United, we can get some interest money out of politics simply by making the ROI bad enough. Is there still time to convince WS that the tea party is the next big thing?
You are, I assume, aware that the Tea Party originated on Wall Street (well, actually from the Chicago Board of Trade floor)? Remember Rick Santelli and his "rant"?
The Tea Party got co-opted by the religious right wing, it was never supposed to be about social issues, originally, it was only supposed to be about "mo-money" for the select few.
I think the Democrat's biggest mistake was not utilizing the Obama's fantastic campaign organization in the 2010 election. The Dems managed to over come the stark realities of the Citizens United case with smart campaigning in 2012, but will they do it again? I hope so, if they want to make any significant progress in fixing the mess Dubya left behind. Much still needs to be done to regulate Wall Street and to prosecute those responsible for what happened to the economy.
The Dems are not much better when it comes to campaign contributions from Wall Street. I can assure you that Wall Street has been gaming the system for the last few decades. They are willing to give money to any whore regardless of political party affiliation. And Dems have taken a lot of that money. I would suspect that Wall Street is looking at the Republicans and their "craziness" as losers in the elections so campaign contributions are already being made to Dems in anticipation of the 2014 elections to stave off any further regulations by Congress. In fact, I believe that Schumer and Gillebrand took a lot of Wall Street money.
I think Wall Steet may sit this one out, because they can't get anything they want in the coming election. At best, Republicans can make gains in the House and maybe win another Senate seat or two, but not flip that chamber. Give them that and they can't repeal Dodd-Frank or do anything about high income tax rates. Democrats will still control the Senate and Presidency, so the best they get is the current stalemate.
Add that to the poor Republican performance last November and they may think even if they do give, it won't get them much in the way of victories, because Republicans seem pretty incompetent at turning untold sums of money into electoral victory. So, recent events give them reason to doubt that they'd get more victories in return for the money spent, and even if they get more victories this time around, it won't move their agenda forward.
The only way I see them giving is if the Republicans extort the money by threatening to compromise with the Democrats on a tax on financial trades, more regulation of the industry, higher taxes on the rich, etc. unless the money keeps rolling in.
All I can say is hahahahaha! Guys who are supposed to be whizzes at investing and look at their misplaced bets!! No wonder the 'little guy' no longer wants anything to do with the stock market, with such 'geniuses' in charge.
"Look at it as in investment." Isn't that an open admission that they thought they were buying Congress?